Madam, A top class pool is a very welcome asset to any community, and we are lucky to have the one we do at Red Meadow.

Equally, we are lucky to have officials and socially-aware bodies continually looking to improve matters in our lovely town.

The issues outlined in the cover story (of the Ross Gazette June 13th) are interesting, and the arguments on options well taken.

Overall, I do think that any possible movements should be referred to residents if the evident alternative is 'those who attend meetings' get to impose their wishes.

A move of an entity such as a pool is no small thing, in time, cost and upheavals, not to mention possible denials of service (as it is not my experience that rebuilding of new facilities takes place prior to closures of old).

Hence I'd tend to be against this simply because of the cost on all these grounds, especially at a time of less than vast funds abounding.

It isn't broke, and as I recall was not long ago fixed to a very high standard, resulting in a closure of many months, to reduce the depth (with consequent operational savings) and to improve the facilities to the current high standard.

A move away from the centre of town, and the convenient foot access for many (and parking for others in complement to other central activities), to a peripheral location would also seem retrograde.

Hence adding additional facilities, more targeted to youth activities, would appear more convenient, less disruptive, a lot cheaper and less wasteful.

Creating funds by selling real estate can be effective in solving fiscal holes, but should not be seen as driving factors. Offsetting replacement costs can be legitimate, but not if viewed more in terms of moving money around, creating 'work' but ultimately little serving community needs and wishes in the process.

Peter Martin, Ross.